Two wrongs (i.e., incorrect assumptions) sometimes do make a right (i.e., correct conclusion)

as in: “I correctly showed up on time to the appointment on Tuesday, because I mistakenly thought the appointment was on Monday and I also mistakenly thought today WAS Monday”

but the more wrongs you add, the less likely this is.

for example, that flawed research about the hierarchies of wolf packs and alphas and betas and stuff.

one flaw was, “wolves behave like that only when they’re a bunch of strangers thrown together under extremely stressful conditions”

and if that was the only flaw, it could be canceled out by: “…well that’s also what most humans are.”

but when you add, “humans are not 100% like wolves,” and “humans are actually really complicated and groups of them can behave all sorts of unpredictable ways,” and “wolves are also actually really complicated and groups of them can behave all sorts of unpredictable ways,” and “the results of that study haven’t even been reproduced in similar conditions,” and so on

then at some point you gotta stop expecting to find a right in all that wrong